Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
So who told you it was a sin to miss mass on sunday ? God or the pope(church)
LOL LOL..
Honey I can not demand anything
Cains motives were bad because he did not obey the Lord and tried to earn Gods love and forgiveness his way and not Gods way.
We are not allowed to prescribe our own means of salvation..that is Gods job..
You may wish to reread Paul, especially Corinthians. Paul corrected them. They were not in a vacuum. Paul was their bishop and ministered to them as best that a constant traveler could. The problem with them (and others) is that they did develop their own versions of faith which were wrong and not Christian. That is the problem with the general umbrella of "Bible Believers" (tm) today. Many who identify themselves in this way, fashion their own beliefs out of snippets from the Bible and call themselves Christian.
For those of us trying to figure it out, here are “The Five Articles of Arminianism”, the positive part of the Remonstrance from 1610?, offered FWIW:
ARTICLE I.—That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
ART. II.—That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world.”
ART. III.—That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
ART. IV. — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, elm neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
ART. V.—That those who an incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable. through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.remonstrants.html
As Wiki puts it: “Following his death, his views came to the forefront for being opposed the five points of Calvinism, though in actuality he objected to only three: unconditional election, limited atonement; and irresistible grace, and doubted one: perseverance of the saints. However, his belief in a point in common with Calvinism, total depravity, was a modified version from the one held by Calvinists.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius
The Synod of Dort sounds like an science fiction movie, but...
“In 1618–19 at the Synod of Dort, the thirteen Arminian pastors headed by Simon Episcopius being shut out, established the victory of the Calvinist school, drew up ninety-three canonical rules, and confirmed the authority of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. The judgment of the synod was enforced by the deposition and in some cases the banishment of Remonstrant ministers; but the government soon became convinced that their party was not dangerous to the state, and in 1630 they were formally allowed liberty to reside in all parts of Holland and build churches and schools.”
“The acts of the Synod were tied to political intrigues that arose during the twelve year truce in the Dutch war with Spain. The Synod condemned the religious doctrine of Arminianism as heresy, which anticipated the political condemnation of the very highly respected and influential statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt who had been the protector of the Arminian Remonstrants. For the crime of general perturbation in the state of the nation, both in Church and State (treason), he was beheaded on 13 May 1619, only four days after the final meeting of the Synod. He is considered, also by the Calvinists, to be one of the greatest men in the history of the Netherlands. Also lost to the nation as a consequence of the Arminian defeat, was the brilliant jurist Hugo Grotius, who was a supporter of the Remonstrants’ rights leading up to the Synod. Grotius was given a life sentence in prison, but escaped with the help of his wife. Both Van Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius had been imprisoned since 29 August 1618. Arminian theology later received official toleration by the State and has since continued in various forms within Protestantism.”
“Paul was their bishop”.
Paul was an Apostle. ANY Apostle could and would correct an erring congregation.
Looks like the statists, whatever their philosophical origin, share many common characteristics in the way they set up a civil society.
Your circular logic is dizzying. To accept your premise we have to accept that either you are saying that the Catholic laity are not men, and/or not a part of the congregation or that your congregation is not speaking for God differently than the Catholic laity when it decides for itself the meaning of scripture against which to hold your pastors.
Calvinist was self identification of Calvinists. Romanist is a Protestant invention - a mocking term applied to Catholics. They are different.
I seem to be making a mess out of explaining this so I found this on line ... it is pretty much what I think "The best conclusion that we can arrive at after studying biblical doctrine is this: Cain and Abel’s sacrifice (and other instances in the bible where there was shedding of blood) were merely shadows or symbols of things to come. All the previously mentioned blood sacrifices point to Jesus Christ, the ultimate sacrifice which took away all the sins of the world in the New Testament. The efficacy of atonement does not reside in the blood of bulls and goats, for these are only used as examples, or hints of what Christ would later do on Calvary, where he would shed his blood as atonement for the sins of mankind.
This is the central theme of the scriptures. The principles in the Old Testament were simply used as symbols of things to come, but everything actually points to Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah. In the case of Abel and Cain, Abel’s offering became the symbol of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. Cain’s offering meanwhile became a symbol of human effort in trying to please God. We cannot please God by our works alone, for we can only be saved by grace through faith. The only faith that leads to salvation is trust and belief in the efficacy of Jesus Christ’s atonement on the cross of Calvary, where he suffered and gave his blood to redeem humanity from transgression. relijournal.com
My "meaning" is directly from the Vatican and has remained unchanged for hundreds of years. It is your modern interpretation of Americanized English words that is at fault. Even the original meaning of the Constitution is subject to common usage revisionism; for instance define happiness in a modern and in a constitutional context.
Fr. O’Brien’s book, “Faith of Millions” bears an imprimatur. Either it is the position of the Catholic Church, or the imprimatur is false. Which is it?
You know nothing on this subject. I suspect a severe case of Croiser Envy.
The point is that from the beginning, the Apostles began to assume their own territories or jurisdictions that they were responsible for managing in terms of doctrine and behaviour. Paul's letters are most instructive about that.
But, for instance, Thomas was the bishop to the far Orient (India and area); Paul (near East and then Rome), and James (Jerusalem) did not oversee these congregations. You are military; you understand the division of command into areas. These initial actions began to develop into the five original sees. And thence, as the world was evangelized, into what became known as dioceses with their own bishops.
“The point is that from the beginning, the Apostles began to assume their own territories or jurisdictions that they were responsible for managing in terms of doctrine and behaviour.”
Disagree. Paul didn’t hesitate to rebuke Peter, if needed...yet Paul went to Jerusalem and listened to James. The foundation is Christ, but the foundation of the church is also the Apostles and Prophets...”So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”
They handed us “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”. The Apostles seemed more concerned with spreading the faith than dividing it up into administrative districts - an approach that still make sense to me.
A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the consecration in the Mass. 263. Q. What is the Mass? A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
The Holy Sacrifice is called Mass probably from the words the priest says at the end when he turns to the people and says, "Ite Missa est"; that is, when he tells them the Holy Sacrifice is over.
264 Q. What is a sacrifice?
A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.
"Sacrifice" From the very earliest history of man we find people--for example, Abel, Noah, etc.--offering up sacrifice to God; that is, taking something and offering it to God, and then destroying it to show that they believed God to be the Master of life and death, and the Supreme Lord of all things. These offerings were sometimes plants or fruits, but most frequently animals.
But how is the Mass a sacrifice? It is a sacrifice because at the Mass the body and blood of Our Lord are offered to His heavenly Father at the consecration, and afterwards consumed by the priest.
266 Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same--Christ Our Blessed Lord: and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.
On the Cross the offering was the body and blood of Our Lord; the one who offered it was Our Lord; the reason for which He offered it was that He might atone for sin; the one to whom He offered it was His heavenly Father. Now, at Mass it is the same. The object offered is Our Lord's body and blood, the one suffering is Our Lord Himself, through the priest; it is offered for sin, and it is offered to the heavenly Father. All things are the same, except that the blood of Our Lord is not shed, and Our Lord does not die again. Baltimore Catachism
Reasonable points. I’m corrected.
Gee even greater than Mary?
This is actually pretty much what I was taught as a child about the mass
The council of bishops is expected to work together to keep orthodoxy. If one is acting outside the Church, it is the job of the other bishops to pull him back in line.
yet Paul went to Jerusalem and listened to James.
No bishop is an island - he is part of the Church whole.
The foundation is Christ, but the foundation of the church is also the Apostles and Prophets...”
I'm going to now request an invitation to your confirmation as a Catholic :).
They handed us “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”. The Apostles seemed more concerned with spreading the faith than dividing it up into administrative districts - an approach that still make sense to me.
Certainly, the first few years were not very organized, but as the Church grew, the hierarchy grew to be able to handle not only the greatly increasing numbers of people and churches, but also the enforcement of orthodoxy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.